But Fox’s Jennifer Griffin confirmed Broadwell’s tale. Yes, the United States was holding prisoners at the consulate in Benghazi.

GRIFFIN: We have now learned those three prisoners had been held for a few days at the annex. And more than just Libyan militia members were held there. There may have been prisoners from other African countries, maybe even the Middle East, they were allegedly interrogated by CIA contractors. The CIA denies this saying the CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009. That’s when the president signed Executive Order 13491. The CIA claims any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is quote “uninformed and baseless.” But a separate well-placed source confirms to Fox News that the Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi may be a possible motive for the staged attack…

Well, what did the general’s mistress know and when did she know it? What else did Petraeus’ pillow talk reveal to the woman whose alleged stalkerish threats took him down?

If true, all of this adds to the reasons that Barack Obama would have been motivated to cover up the attack. He ran on closing Gitmo and undoing the CIA’s wartime powers, but in Libya — a quasi-state whose revolution he had overseen — his CIA was using those wartime powers he had cynically run against and even written an executive order to do away with.

In addition to this, the attack on the US embassy in Cairo, Egypt on 9-11-12 was not a protest, but an effort to get a big terrorist kahuna freed from US prison. If that attack and the Benghazi attack had similar goals and happened on the same day, it’s not unreasonable to believe that they were coordinated al Qaeda trikes.

It’s also possible that Petraeus had the CIA holding prisoners outside his stated authority from the president. For that to be true, though, Petraeus would have had to worked with Stevens, and both would have known that they were breaking the president’s directive. It seems more likely that Obama knew and authorized holding prisoners at Benghazi.

Bryan Preston has been a leading conservative blogger and opinionator since founding his first blog in 2001. Bryan is a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show and, most recently before joining PJM, was Communications Director of the Republican Party of Texas.

Click here to view the 16 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

16 Comments, 10 Threads

1.
WALT C

This just keeps getting gooder and gooder.

This is less an impeachable offense and more of a treasonous event if they left Stevens and the others to die.

If true, you can see why they wanted to keep a lid on it until after the election. Not that it would have changed anything. The media would have still ran cover and the takers still would have voted for Santa Clause.

Obama could set fire to a bus full of pregnant women on live television and there’d be no move to impeach him. Democrats consider any action by their politicians as right and necessary, and no Republican is going to be the first to vote to impeach the first black president. ‘Cause it’s racist to hold him to the same standards we would anyone else.

To them they showed the parolee’s anti-Islamist video, protesters raged and killed the ambassador, the parolee spends his Thanksgiving and Christsmas in jail, and will not be allowed to make another video to incite the incitable next 9-11. America loves its 1st Amendment, America loves its leads nobody from nowhere leadership in the Middle East.

Anything can be an impeachable offense. An impeachable offense is whatever the House of Reps says it is. And it is the House that impeaches, not the Senate. The Senate is the jury for the impeachment trial. The Senate can convict, or not. But whatever they do, Bathhouse Barry will have been impeached, should the House draw up the articles. Talking of “treason” just sounds over the top. More on point is “criminally negligent homicide”, along with lying to Congress and the American people, potentially suborning perjury, conspiracy to obstruct justice, etc.

The CIA is a huge mess just like anything else within the government today. They should have NEVER been granted law enforcement, military or para-military type roles in combat missions or in nation building. Heck nowadays, we even have the FBI the DEA and who know what other ‘domestic’ agencies involved in our on-the-ground combat missions. Everybody’s authorities and missions have become blurred and cross all lines. What a mess!

Lets get one thing right, the CIA is doing a bunch of dirty stuff and they should be doing a bunch of dirty stuff. The CIA is there to do a bunch of dirty stuff in foreign countries. They were fighting on the ground in Libya along with the British SAS this has become uncommon knowledge, in other words its not on CNN but it still happened. Once again its really all about the cover up (stupid) that is the issue. The key for me is the prisoner issue where there prisoners people being detained in any of the facilities being attacked? Obviously this is what they wanted covering up but the weird thing for me is the FBI investigating the CIA, this could be the real scandal?